Anti-2A efforts imperil property rights

Anti-2A efforts imperil property rights

February 18th, 2013 at 12:15pm

My younger brother was murdered in 2007 after receiving a series of threats and after having already survived one attempt on his life. From my home in Spokane I begged him to arm himself and to get some training; he was smugly opposed.
Now, roughly three weeks ago and concluding several increasingly confrontational email and phone contacts with my father, I realized my relationship with my closest male relatives had come to paralell the historical and scriptural discriptives 'brother against brother' and 'father against son'.
After following news/editorial coverage of the Sandy Hook murders, my father had opined publicly that the government must outlaw 'all assault weapons'. I was shocked at our apparently divided loyalties--- a WW2 airwar combat vet; Idaho farm boy who later earned a PhD. Only similar behavior from my own sons could have shaken me more deeply.
If there's a difference between the opening engagements in a Civil War and current events, the distinctions are largely lost on me. Many Americans act wholly ignorant as to where political authority originates. That, or they're squeezing eyes tightly shut while naively hoping for that which never was and never will be: Safety without Liberty.
Enter an article forwarded by a respected brother-in-law, and atttibuted to a Dean Garrison of Michigan. I recommend it whole-heartedly, and link to it below. Mr. Garrison points to one reality under our Republican form of government: The rights of the ONE are guaranteed against the votes of the majority. I want to emphasize here, two additional realities being largely ignored in the progressive mad rush toward serfdom: INFRINGEMENT and the sanctity of PRIVATE PROPERTY.
The 2A meaning of 'infringed'
'Infringed', as used by the Framers in the Second Amendment, means 'to make smaller'. We declare in the 2A that our government has no power delegated it, TO MAKE SMALLER our natural right to own, maintain or carry weapons.
INFRINGED is used identically in patent and copyright issues. Were you to hold a patent or copyright, your full use and enjoyment of all aspects and proceeds associated with your work is protected from any and all encroachment by others. Imagine the injustice if others could infringe on your intellectual property, but you could claim no protections or relief until damages/losses exceeded some arbitrarilly-set benchmark! A bootlegger could be allowed to screen duplicated movies as long as he didn't eat into the producer's revenues 'too much', or even so long as the authorized theatres still had a single customer!
Yet this is exactly what gun-control proponents argue; that infringement under the 2A doesn't happen as long as SOME TYPE of weapon may still be kept and borne by citizens. The attempts to prohibit citizens from owning and using (AND transfering ownership of) the same types of weapons as carried by potential enemies, is pure INFRINGEMENT. Precedent to the contrary be damned--- Remember, the concealed carry of pistols was never statutorily limited until post-Civil War 'Jim Crow' legislation. After all, who thinks its a good idea to have former slaves able to shoot at a moments warning! //sarc off
Remember too, that the federal government argued in the first 2A case heard by the Supreme Court (US vs. Miller), that only militia-type weapons WERE PROTECTED by the 2A. Now gun-control proponents would like citizens to accept the exact opposite; no military-pattern magazines, no bayonet lugs, no pistol-grips, etc., etc. and etc.
Nothing is impossible for God, but for mere humans its the next thing to IMPOSSIBLE to prevail in a conflict against invaders, tyrants and outlaws, when the enemy carries weapons far more efficient and suited to the purpose, than their own.
'Universal Background Checks'
The proposed 'Universal Background Checks' is as bad an idea as has ever been raised! The proposal would repudiate the definition of private property. One really only owns one's property so long as one has the unfettered ability to keep it, use it or transfer its ownership as one sees fit. My weapons are my property, and I retain the right to sell, trade, gift and bequeath as I wish. The proposal opens the door to the false concept that government has the authority delegated it, to prohibit owners from disposing of their property in sale, without prior government approval.
For many gun owners, the passion they may express after hearing gun-control schemes, is identical to that which would be generated had the proposal centered on converting their loved ones and friends from free-born citizens into slaves. And that's entirely as it should be, because that's exactly the issue.
It's time for all to choose whom and what they will serve. I choose LIBERTY, and I view INFRINGERS as SUBVERSIVES.
Michael McIntire
08 FEB 13
Spokane county, Washington
--------- BEGIN FWD. ---------
...Here is what Wikipedia has to say about the author:
Dean Garrison (born 1955) is a contemporary American author and crime fiction novelist. He was born in Michigan, grew up in the Indiana, Illinois, and Texas, and received his B.A. degree from Ferris State University in Big Rapids, Michigan. Garrison is a Crime Scene Technician in West Michigan. His research in the fields of crime scene investigation and Shooting Reconstruction are widely published in forensic journals under the name "D.H. Garrison, Jr."
Subject: If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight
See Mr. Garrison's article here:
http://dcclothesline.wordpress.com/2013/01/03/if-they-come-for-your-guns-do-you-have-a-responsibility-to-fight/